On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 7:25 PM, Prarit Bhargava <prarit@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 10/30/2013 02:10 PM, Simo Sorce wrote: >> On Wed, 2013-10-30 at 10:51 -0700, David Strauss wrote: >>> On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 10:09 AM, Josh Boyer <jwboyer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> Massive 4096 multi-cored CPU machines with terabytes of DRAM and >>>> petabytes of storage, or more commodity style hardware used in >>>> heterogeneous environments, etc. >>> >>> The latter. We'd want a separate HPC group for 512+ core machines. >> >> Or simply, sites so big can care for their own kernel builds most >> probably, or seek for commercial support. > > Why limit it so low? If we're thinking about going big, well, GO BIG. > > Users of Fedora want to support these systems out-of-the-box so they can get an > idea if their systems work. Stopping at 512 just seems too low these days. > > We're talking about saving a very small amount of memory by not going to 4096 .. Remind me how much again? IIRC, it was around 2MB additional runtime overhead to set MAX_CPUS to that, right? That's very small on servers, not so small on cloud. josh _______________________________________________ kernel mailing list kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/kernel
